Foreign Policy Blogs

Fox News, Washington Times, MSM Jump on Fast and Furious: All Sizzle, No Steak

Fast and Furious: where's the REAL story?

I love the smell of spin in the morning.

Turn on the news, rev up the internet, and there it is—false leads, partial truths, irrelevant facts, muddled narratives, legal misfires, knee-jerk politics, conspiracy theories, and ‘insider info’ hot off the grill from a government spokesperson intent on staying employed or from an ‘informed and trusted source’ with, wouldn’t you just know it, an agenda of his or her own.

Listen. It’s time for the media and Congress, to get the story (the whole thing) right. We need more focus on the criminality that may attend Fast and Furious and less discussion about the outrageous, but not illegal, aspects of the operation. More news and less noise. Last Monday morning, Fox News ran a cover story— “ATF ‘Fast and Furious’ Claim SHOT FULL OF HOLES” (The caps belong to Fox). The visuals were pretty exciting, but the revelations in the article, hardly breaking news, were SHOT FULL OF SPIN.

Let’s review

Fox reporter William LaJeunesse (US Government Bought and Sold Weapons) tells us, first, that it was ‘taxpayer money’ (1.25 million—ok, sounds right) that paid for the military-grade weapons ATF sent across the US-Mexico border as part of Fast and Furious.

Where else would that money have come from? Do we think ATF agents in Phoenix passed the hat? It came from the ATF ‘buy find.’ True, the feds have, in some cases, funded investigations with money garnered from the bad guys, but in the case of Fast and Furious, as we know, the US was giving, not getting.

The notion that any US law enforcement agency might have obtained authorization for an operational plan premised on the idea that we could merely throw guns into Mexico—to support the Sinaloa Cartel or any other DTO—and then trace those guns is nonsense.

If the Sinaloa Cartel had needed guns, here’s how it would have worked: someone close to the top of the drug game in Mexico, let’s say Joachim Guzman Loera’s ‘CFO,’ calls whatever US enforcement agency seems a likely supplier (our agent would be a high-level investigator, working in an undercover capacity, who had ‘earned’ the trust of top cartel figures) with a coded shopping list. That’s right. A list. Bad guys don’t generally say “Just send us whatever you have sitting on the shelves…AK-47s, Barrett .50 cals, how about some RPGs? You decide.”

The proposal? Cash for guns.

The cartel contact tells his US enforcement contact to send a man to, say, LA. When our guy gets there, he’s told he should call a cartel contact—cell number provided—and text in a code. This same cartel contact then calls the US agent back, gives him instructions re a meeting place and transfer logistics, shows up at the designated location, opens up the trunk of his vehicle and pulls out a big bag of money.

US law enforcement, after obtaining exemptions from the Arms Export Control Act (ITAR), then uses that cash to buy the weapons, and arrange (as part of a legitimate sting operation) for the transfer of the guns into Mexico.

That’s how it’s done in a by-the-book sting. That’s not how it worked in Fast and Furious. But back to the question: is the fact that taxpayers paid for the guns ATF sent into Mexico headline news?

Next?

The Fox News reporter goes on to tells us that ‘this disclosure (re the use of taxpayer money) “could undermine” the claim that Fast and Furious was merely a ‘botched operation’ where agents ‘simply lost track of weapons as they were transferred from one illegal buyer to another….Instead it heightens the culpability of the federal government…”

Am I missing something?

How does the ‘disclosure’ that taxpayer money was used to buy the weapons ATF let walk across the US-Mexico border ‘undermine the defense that Fast and Furious was simply a ‘botched operation’?

I agree with LaJeunesse, who, by the way, has a longstanding and solid rep, about Fast and Furious being something other than a sting gone wrong, (and have said so in my last three blogs) but please, Bill, connect the dots here for me …

The reason Fast and Furious cannot claim the ‘preferred’ status of a ‘botched op,’ with its regrettable, but not criminal outcome, is this: no provisions were in place at any point or at any time to trace, track or interdict the weapons before they could be used to kill innocent people (not an option under US law) on both sides of the SW border.

And then, of course, there’s also the question nobody seems willing to ask: did ATF violate the Arms Export Control Act (ITAR)—the same oversight that resulted in the indictment of 14 high-level administration players linked to Iran-Contra?

Fast and Furious is not under scrutiny because the US taxpayer footed the bill for the guns purchased from US gun dealers–an ‘insult-to-injury’ addendum, yes, but nothing compared to the criminal violations the architects of this operation may face.

Not the story

LaJeunesse also reports that ATF agents encouraged gun dealers (FFLs) along the SW border to sell weapons, singly and in bundles, to straw buyers gun dealers suspected were fronting for criminals—even when those firearms dealers objected. Old news.

All of this is in the Grassley-Issa Report on Fast and Furious prepared for the House Oversight Committee—in the public domain for months.

Fox News tells us as well that this was not a ‘buy-bust’ or legitimate ‘sting’ operation.

Snore.

Haven’t we already covered this territory?

Yes, ATF agents were specifically advised by superiors that interdiction of these weapons, at any point in the process, was not an option. ATF knew it would not see these weapons again until Mexican or US authorities retrieved them at crime scenes and sent then ‘back home to ATF’ for identification. ATF did, in fact, enter the serial numbers of the weapons they encouraged dealers to sell into the ATF database before they let these lethal weapons walk into Mexico.

We know this. We’ve said it here in this blog. Read the Grassley-Issa report. Or even better, brush off those Intro to Logic skills and ask yourself how a plan purportedly designed to track or trace the movement of lethal weapons might have done so sans tracking/tracing/GPS devices or ongoing human surveillance.

Forget the sizzle, Bill, and move on to the steak.

The real deal

Here are some better questions for Fox News—and for its colleagues in the Mainstream Media (MSM). Why were field agents running the op told by their supervisors NOT to interdict? Why were they ordered by their supervisors to let the guns walk?

Because those were the orders given to their supervisors by their bosses. And the buck stops…where?

ATF, a malleable, ambitious agency ISO glory and an enhanced budget, was, as they say in the homicide division, the means. Operation Gunrunner, a run-of-the-mill op ideally suited to parent darker offspring, was the opportunity. All we need now is motive.

Who stood to benefit, politically or practically, from a ‘secret’ plan to supply Mexican gangs with military-grade weapons that could be identified, incontrovertibly, once returned to ATF by Mexican authorities, as short ‘time-to-crime’ weapons purchased from US gun shops by illegal buyers? No mention of ATF involvement.

Were field agents in Phoenix making money via the sale of these weapons? Don’t think so.

Were their supervisors or the Assistant US Attorneys in Arizona masterminding some self-promoting scheme sans sign-off from the top, boldly breaking the chain of command? Unlikely.

Was Kenneth Melson suddenly overtaken by so much anti-gun fervor that he decided to violate federal law and abandon a career in government (guaranteed work in a shaky economy) for irresistible ideological passions? Sure.

Media muddles, Congress carps

Who’s ready to follow this winding stair all the way to the top? Fox News, The Washington Times, the Washington Post, the New York Times? Forbes just came out yesterday with a headline reading “Fast and Furious Just Might be Obama’s Watergate.” Wow. Where have they been?

NRA’s Wayne LaPierre sent the “W” word out into mediaspace last week as well, hoping he had a scoop and convinced, it seems, that he was letting loose with a big nasty one. Wake up, Wayne, that train’s already left the station.

And what’s holding up the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee? Maybe they’re having a hard time getting that elephant out of the Hearing Room….

Ok, ok. Maybe I’m being too hard on these folks—because never has so simple (and so BIG) a story been so deliberately muddled, complicated, recast, and revised.

And, of course, there’s a reason for this.

Spin

Moving targets are harder to hit. And the stakes—for everyone involved in and affected by Fast and Furious—are high. There are going to be losers.

Disinformation (from the Russian dezinformatsiya) translates into a toolbox of disparate strategies, all designed to manipulate public opinion via half-truths (the limited hangout), diversions, confusion/conflation, deceit, and the appeal to political biases already at work in the hearts and minds of people who might otherwise be mistaken for rational citizens.

With Fast and Furious, we see it all.

The limited hangout (an admission to having played a lesser or partial role in a scandal in the hope that what looks like a quick and sincere confession of a relatively ‘minor crime’ will preclude further investigation and take the transgressor off the hook): the admission by President Obama that ‘serious mistakes may have been made,’ and the characterization of the operation by DOJ/ATF as a ‘botched operation’ as opposed to a criminal enterprise. The pledge to conduct a rigorous ‘internal investigation’ by OIG/DOJ.

Diversions (‘disambiguation’ or the ‘red herring strategy’): look to reports highlighting the involvement of other agencies, i.e., the FBI, ICE, DHS, CIA. Any of these entities might have jumped on the bandwagon at any given point, but the fact is that while ICE officially exercises jurisdiction over covert cross-border tracking operations, ATF and the Office of the Attorney General clearly appropriated authority (and accountability) for Fast and Furious. As far as the legality of this ATF operation is concerned, the role of other players (with the exception of the US Department of State) isn’t relevant—their possible involvement, in other words, doesn’t ameliorate or diminish possible criminality on the part of ATF/DOJ.

If Fast and Furious was a legitimate enforcement operation, one or more of the top three officials at the Department of Justice requested and obtained exemptions from the Arms Export Control Act (ITAR) by the State Department. No requests from DOJ and/or no exemptions from State means Eric Holder may be reprising the role of Oliver North in this administration’s re-enactment of Iran-Contra. A former federal agent suggests that if the Attorney General feels the North role may be too demanding, he might do well to remember the John Mitchell part has yet to be cast.

Confusion/conflation: (Cluttering/littering a story with speculation about larger umbrella scenarios, or links which may impact the core story in plausible or seemingly parallel, but not causal, ways) i.e., Fast and Furious was part of a larger ‘covert’ CIA operation whereby US arms were smuggled to Sinaloa Cartel to prevent a takeover of the Calderon Administration by Los Zetas. Or a suspect involved in manufacturing grenades for Mexican criminals eluded ATF. Or ATF also walked guns to Chicago gangs and to criminals in Honduras via Operation Castaway.

Fast and Furious plays for the CIA?

This is where it gets good. I especially like the claim, advanced by The Washington Times, about Fast and Furious being part of a CIA operation.

Why? Because it’s a first-class diversion, plenty shiny enough to engage an untold number of glittery-eyed conspiracy theorists. And it transforms a simple tale into the kind of spinetingler we just don’t want to put down. You see, the CIA is the only agency that can, in certain limited circumstances, run a covert op without involving Congress (you’re still supposed to brief the President, but that’s never in the movies, so…) It’s also an agency able to obtain what’s called a ‘pocket exemption’ from State re the Arms Export Control Act (ITAR)—not in connection with an operation like Fast and Furious, a domestic op, but in situations where the agency is part of an effort to supply arms to an insurgency the US supports. Moreover, a federal prosecutor is unlikely to get involved in a case where the CIA is lurking in the background.

The bottom line? A connection with the CIA can give you some wiggle-room, legally, psychologically, politically, and certainly in the court of public opinion.

A fabricated link, nurtured by the press, between the CIA and Fast and Furious, could spin the blame away from DOJ (look at it from their angle) and give the agency the breathing space it needs to deflect the relentless upward probe of the House Oversight Committee—the narrative reads like the Bourne Trilogy, and just the notion that a under-rated little agency like ATF might be running with dogs big enough to ‘save’ Mexico’s Prez from some of the most vicious assassins in the world (and only a skip and a jump away) packs a powerful wallop.

If it’s a lie (OGA, I hear, is less than keen these days to engage south-of-the-border), at least it’s an interesting one, and kudos to the spin doctors who called it into being. I was on the edge of my seat last week, mesmerized by the report in the Washington Times and its subliminal warning: don’t get involved in things you don’t understand.

The ATF-CIA connection laid out in the WT, of course, was the contribution of a cartel higher-up named Vicente Zambada Niebla, (aka ‘El Vincentillo’), extradited to the US in 2010 on drug trafficking charges and now in US custody awaiting trial. Does this sound like a reliable witness? Does it matter? Apparently not.

Prevarication

Lying, the bottom rung on the ladder of disinformation, is a Don’t Blink kind of business. You need brass.

“El Vincentillo’s” very expensive legal team has it: they continue to advise their high-profile client to ‘come clean’ about the US-Sinaloa ‘partnership,’ and according to the drug kingpin (behind bars in Chi-Town), it’s a very special friendship, so special, in fact, that, allegedly, the US government was only too happy to look the other way when, on one memorable occasion, the Sinaloa Cartel flew a 747 packed to the brim with cocaine into American airspace. And this, according to the Washington Times, is straight from the mouths of ‘CIA insiders,’ former employees.

Well then, what more is there to say?

Maybe this: creating, or fueling ever-widening conspiracy theories is uber-spin. A related tactic involves ‘planting’ one team’s player within the ranks of the opposing team, for the purpose of gaining the trust of that larger constituency, playing on its passions and loyalties, and then sowing confusion, doubt and false information within its ranks. The ‘plant’ could be a journalist, a blogger, or a ‘source’ driven by self-interest or a personal vendetta to ‘share’ or ‘corroborate’ little-known information of interest to the host organization. In war, we call these folks ‘double-agents.’ In spy-talk, the term is ‘counter-intelligence.’ In politics, the phrase is ‘dirty tricks.’

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not pointing at any specific blog, website, or news outlet. I’m not questioning the motives of any reporter’s sources or the credibility of a specific article. I’m only sending out a message of my own: caveat emptor.

‘El Vincentillo’s’ defense lawyers, highly paid and out to win, understands that a successful legal defense, like military propaganda, like the political ploy, is all about spin. And theirs is the best that money can buy. Good stuff.

The US Government and the Sinaloa Cartel

But let’s get back to a bone (extracted from the Washington Times article) I think still needs picking: the claim about the Sinaloa Cartel needing the 2000 weapons ATF sent into Mexico via Fast and Furious.

Mexico is awash in guns: Calderon’s government is the number one purchaser of US arms through our own State Department’s Direct Commercial Sales program (DCS), a subject, certainly, for another blog.

Mexico spends roughly twice as much (416m) through this program as Brazil (209m), the next largest customer on the list, and a country, what? Three times as big as Mexico? No matter: given the negligible degrees of separation between Mexico’s military, its federal police force, and other powerful players throughout the country, weapons tend to travel freely through different sectors of the economy. No stovepiping, no bottlenecks here.

It’s also (still) well-known that Mexican gangs can get all the ordnance they want from Venezuela. Da, that’s right: Russia continues to support Chavez in the construction and maintenance of at least two factories currently churning out AK-47s and the ammunition the weapon’s users need.

Another blow to the ‘US is sending guns to Sinaloa to prevent the overthrow of the current US-friendly administration’ argument: Joaquin Guzman Loera. “El Chapo,” as Guzman is called, is reportedly the 11th richest man in Mexico. Still, the drug lord scores a relatively low ranking on Forbes Magazine’s 2011 Global List of Billionaires, (Mexico’s Telecom tycoon Carlos Slim Helu heads the list as the richest man in the world), but I suspect the magazine significantly underestimates El Chapo’s wealth (listed at 1.0 bn). The truth is that Guzman ‘owns’ the Sinaloa Cartel, and the Sinaloa Cartel, say enforcement insiders, owns Mexico.

Joaquin 'El Chapo' Guzman

El Chapo certainly doesn’t need ATF’s measly 2K contribution of AK-47s and .50 cal sniper rifles to fend off Los Zetas—as violent as they are, the fact is the breakaway assassination squad now controls only a small piece of the pie with a much smaller piece of Mexico’s criminal GDP. The Mexican military is pounding Los Zetas, to good effect. Guzman runs a juggernaut operation, and his very flush associates have the resources to buy an army and twice the weapons that army needs. El Chapo supports PAN, Mexico’s ruling National Action Party, and Calderon.

The CIA used Fast and Furious to shore up Sinaloa and prevent a political coup by Los Zetas? Please.

There are other sidebar articles generated by Fast and Furious, of course–less-thorny reports about ATF’s failure to nab grenade-man or possible ‘companion’ gun walking operations benefiting gangs in the Windy City or mobsters in Honduras. And these make for good reading. But more details about who did what at the lowest levels–the operational architecture of these undertakings–still do not make Fast and Furious anything other than exactly what it appears to be—an under-the-table plan to supply the Administration with strong public support for more stringent gun regs and Mexico with the evidence it seeks to support Calderon’s claim re US weapons fueling Mexico’s drug violence. The simplest answer is usually the correct one. Let’s not forget …

Occam’s Razor

In this case, it comes with a double edge. Because the same simple plan that supported the needs of our trading partner to the south also played to a critical part of the administration’s base here at home: the folks pushing for more stringent gun regulation. A straightforward case of political win-win.

Almost.

The challenge now, for the media, and certainly for Congress, is to address the real questions, to clarify the dangers inherent in Fast and Furious—especially the threat to the rule of law—and to step up to the possible consequences of a genuine, no-holds-barred investigation into a US government operation that triggered the provision of lethal weapons to criminal actors in Mexico. Weapons used to murder US citizens.

We know how Fast and Furious worked. Now it’s time to ask ‘who’ and ‘why.’ If Fast and Furious operated in violation of US law, which laws, exactly, did DOJ/ATF break? The Arms Export Control Act? The Hobbs Act? Is there perjury at work here? Where’s the crime?

Everyone has a dog in this fight. The press, the government, the White House, Congress, the House Oversight Committee. Republicans. Democrats. US gun dealers. The pro-gun lobby. The anti-gun contingent. US banks with big Mexican accounts. US corporations riding high with NAFTA. The government of Mexico. Mexico’s cartels. Everyone has ‘boundaries,’ not the kind Dr. Phil says we need to protect our psyches—the kind we use to protect our own interests. We want Fast and Furious to mean what what our bank accounts, our careers, or our ideologies need it to mean.

So let’s not pretend the MSM is going, at some point, to offer the public the red meat it craves. Forget about ‘discomfiting the comfortable.’ Fox News has fed us subprime in the hope we’re hungry enough and sufficiently ill-formed to mistake it for NY Strip. Send it back.

Issa’s Committee inches along as well, postponing the appointment of a Special Prosecutor for reasons just vague enough to sound important. One article I recently read mistakenly cites what the author says is a Committee concern that a special counsel would be chosen by DOJ—not true…the special counsel usually comes out of the private sector.

So, what’s the real problem? Loss of control over the outcome of the investigation? Political blowback, perhaps, in an election year–charges of racism? Maybe dangerous revelations about the part our Nafta-partner could have played in the ATF debacle? Mexico, aka ‘Golden Goose,’ enjoys bipartisan support in Washington.

Wait–if Congress needs a rationale to sell a real investigation to its corporate sponsors (ok, maybe, with a ‘surgical strike’ against the present administration, but not with a dig that might rattle our trade deal with el jefe), well, how about this?

What was it that the ATF supervisor in the Phoenix office told worried field agents when they queried him about the advisability of letting lethal weapons disappear without a trace? If you want to make an omelette, you gotta’ break some eggs. HOOAH!

My take? Find an upright, do-right US prosecutor (a Spanish-speaker) willing to leave a comfortable berth in the private sector to take a job he’s smart enough to know may end his career, and let that dog hunt.

Mexico, engaging perhaps in some heady spin of its own (the best defense is a good offense), is turning up the rhetorical heat and threatening to extradite ATF agents involved in Fast and Furious (more on this later). Yes, the Mexican government has opened two, count ‘em, two criminal investigations into Fast and Furious.

Who’d have thought they’d have the time, fighting off all those impending coups?

Government agencies across DC are also on high-alert: organizations that fear they may be connected in even the most remote way to ATF’s gun walking operation have their people working overtime to distract, delay and deceive anyone who manages to get a live voice on the press office phone.

And then (remember the link between spin and political passions?), there are the sincere, unwitting accomplices to the kinds of disinformation campaigns that depend on true believers: Americans who refuse to see the investigation into Fast and Furious as anything but a political witch hunt.

Here’s the problem with any kind of hard, to-hell-and-back investigation into Fast and Furious: no matter who you are, if you choose to do it right–and pay full price for this ticket–the ride is going to take you places you really don’t want to go.

Believe me.

What is it they say about ‘inconvenient truths’?

How about ‘freedom isn’t free.’ Or easy.

Try spinning that for a while. ..

 
  • John E Beardsley

    Yes you are missing most of it! This is a typical government COVERUP! All progressives wish this would GO AWAY. IT WON’T Your article under a GREAT Seal of something that copies USA State Dept may impress some but yours is a progressive Obama RANT not even in Sheeps Clothing. Your people are scamming you big time.

    • Kathleen Millar

      Wow…and I was worried I wouldn’t get any comments! This is my point: the criminal violation that DOJ/ATF may be covering up most likely consists of multiple violations of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) or ITAR. Violations of this law send people to jail, and it is a law which cannot be abrogated by the President, Congress, the Attorney General or any government agency (DOJ/ATF, for example). ITAR violations are what triggered the criminal indictment of 14 top officials in the Reagan Administration (for which I worked, by the way). The same standard, if it is discovered that AECA/ITAR was violated by appointees of this Administration, should be imposed on the architects of F+F, no matter who the higher-ups in this case might be. News reports that divert the reader from the actual crime that may end in the indictment of F+F players–reports, for example, that merely repeat information that has been available for some time in the Grassley-Issa report, or that reiterate characterizations of the operation made months ago (the Watergate analogy), or reports that Dodson HIMSELF actually handed a weapon over to a straw buyer are interesting but do not point the reader to an understanding of the real crime that may lie at the heart of F+F– the violation of AECA/ITAR. By focusing on ‘old news’ or details which may shock, irritate, or entertain readers, journalists do little to bring the public to the ‘criminal crux’ of the matter, so to speak. Dodson’s handing over a weapon to a straw buyer HIMSELF and accepting ‘payment’ is not in ITSELF a crime. The fact that ATF used money from its own ‘buy fund’ to pay for the weapons it sent south is not in itself a crime (certainly an ‘outrage’ since it was taxpayer money, but not a crime). It also seems obvious (and has already be opined on many sites) that a gun tracing operation that employed no tracing devices to track the guns, nor human surveillance, was not a ‘botched operation,’ but something else, something logic tells us could be far more sinister. Fox’s LaJeunesse repeats this notion–fine. I have great respect for LaJeunesse, who earned his creds working, I believe, up close and personal for a paper on the SW border, covering cartel and drug news. But can we move on to some new news? Should the press not be advancing the investigation into F+F in ways that might, indeed, lead us to a clear understanding of the CRIMINAL aspects of a possible cover-up on the part of Administration higher-ups? I think yes. For example, Fox (or any member of the MSM) might call the State Department Press Office and simply ask them if DOJ/ATF asked for and received exemptions from the Arms Export Control Act to send 1700+ across the US-Mexico border. Because if there is no evidence, as there should be at State, that Hillary Clinton’s agency received these requests from DOJ (which would have been signed by Holder, his Deputy or the head of the the Criminal Division at DOJ), and if there is no evidence that DOJ subsequently received those same exemptions, as required by law, to send lethal weapons across the border as part of an official investigation, therein lies the really big crime–and the really big story. Here’s the question the press needs to address: what would make F+F a CRIMINAL undertaking? How might DOJ/ATF have broken the laws of the US, and what are those laws? In other words, if the media wants to go after a story that may turn into Iran-Contra II, here’s my (metaphorical) advice: forget the cannoli–bring the guns. The responsibility of press in the US is To Stay on Point. Still with me? Thanks for your response, Mr. ‘Beardsley.’ Write anytime.

    • Kathleen Millar

      PS–the seal belongs, not to the State Department, but to the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. You know, ATF…

  • LisaGinNZ

    great article, Kathleen… thank you … I fear the lamestream media will continue to spin this puppy until we’re all dizzy or we fall off the fast moving top…keep up the great investigating

    cheers from a Wilmette IL girl living in NZ

  • Jack

    … fast forward a few weeks … sometimes the sizzle takes a while … but I don’t think I saw CBS on the original list of carpers …
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20115038-10391695.html

    Holder’s explanation that he “didn’t understand the question” strikes me as more than a bit awkward. If that doesn’t pave the way for a special prosecutor, I don’t know what would.

    RE: Dogs in the Fight
    Does anyone remember the administration narrative about the “90% of Mexican crime guns coming from the U.S.” …
    http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/counting-mexicos-guns/

    … is it too cynical (spinfull?) to cite this as a potential motivation?

    • Kathleen Millar

      Sharyl Attkisson of CBS news has done a great job breaking news re F+F. But here’s the thing to remember: the media is focused on producing stories that sell newspapers or trigger site hits/visits–it is not their job to investigate crimes or even to determine if a certain enterprise qualifies as a criminal activity. Yes, we had W+B ‘investigating’ Watergate in a way that paved the road for a Special Prosecutor, but that is not, again, the role the media is required to assume. It is to the advantage of the press or media to construct reports that may or MAY NOT contain relevant facts as long as a story grabs a respectable market share. It is the reader’s responsibility to sift through a story and ask if the facts presented move the story forward or develop an argument supporting, in this case, the claim that government officials may have violated the laws of the United States. Reporters build a case from the ground up — the media wants first to avoid legal liability and political blowback, and second, to string the story out as long as possible (via repetition and sidebar reports re interesting but irrelevant facts) to increase market share — increase readership. Congressional Committees also enjoy the limelight and may prolong investigations long after it is clear criminal violations do indeed exist so that members can enhance their profiles and/or buy time until majority members decide how best to play the cards they hold. Their MO? To begin by identifying officials who lie under oath–with perjury charges–and blanket ground zero with subpoenas (aka, ‘orders to shred’). There is an alternative. Once it is clear that government officials have in all likelihood violated the law, in this case, AECA/ITAR, it’s time to name a Special Prosecutor, itself an undertaking of political as well as practical import. The Issa-Grassley Committee is quite capable of querying State re ATF’s requisitioning of exemptions from the Arms Import Control Act, as are other Congressional Committees, and if the Issa-Grassley Committee isn’t ready to do this, then perhaps Lamar Smith should run with the ball the House Oversight Committee doesn’t seem prepared to pick up. We know enough about F+F to expect a Grand Jury, a Special Prosecutor, or Independent Counsel. We are past ‘revelations’ in the press that continue to outrage the public but do little to move the case into the courtroom–but stakeholders who wish to keep the story in the news and out of the courtroom, who want to avoid turning ‘news’ into indictments–because it’s not their job, or because they play for an opposing political team–continue to supply us with information that, at his point, we don’t really need to move F+F off the front pages and into a judicial venue. Calderon’s 90 percent figure, his estimation may speak to motive, and this is something that needs to be followed up, but the ploy in and of itself does not constitute a crime. The media needs to call the State Department and ask if ATF would have had to request exemptions to AECA to move 1700+ weapons across the border. The followup question? Whether State has copies of ATF’s requests for exemptions. That, my friend, is the ball game.

  • Kathleen Millar

    Hey Joe, forgot to say thanks for making the effort and visiting the FPA Global Blogsite. Stick with it!

  • Kathleen Millar

    Yup, twisted is the word. Understanding the ways different stakeholders in F+F are using ‘spin’ (in all its many disguises) isn’t easy. There are a number of players who have an invested interest in ‘writing the final chapter’ in the F+F story, and they are working overtime to ensure that their conclusions will be the ones included in the history books. So the challenge is separating fact from fiction, avoiding detours and distraction, and relying on the logical principle we call Occam’s Razor, which proposes that the easiest, simplest explanation is often the most reliable. It is the responsibility of the media to zero in on whatever criminal violations may in fact end in indictments–other facets of the story may infuriate or engage us, but it’s only the ‘crime’ that carries the ‘time.’ If F+F is, as many believe, a ‘coverup,’ the question is ‘What is it, what criminal violations, are being covered-up and why?” Re Watergate, it was illegal wiretaps, illegal break-ins, and perjury. Re Iran Contra, it was multiple violations of ITAR, perjury, lying to Congress and other related violations of US law. What laws, if any, have the architects of F+F violated, and why would the officials we may bring into court at the end of this scenario have chosen to break these laws? Motive? Let the press focus on the steak, not the sizzle (even though the sizzle, especially the kind that accompanies crime stories, sells a lot of newspapers….). In other words, Joe, the question we should ask the press and Congress appears to be the very one you’ve posed on this site today –”Where’s the beef”? Thanks for your response.

Author

Kathleen Millar
Kathleen Millar

Kathleen Millar began her career in public affairs working for Lyn Nofziger, White House Communications Director. She has gone on to write about a wide range of enforcement and security issues for DHS, for the US Department of the Treasury (Customs & Border Patrol), for Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME), then a Member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and for top law enforcement officials in the United States and abroad.

A Founding Member of the Department of Homeland Security, Millar was also the deputy spokesperson-senior writer for the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime in Vienna, Austria. She has authored numerous speeches, articles and opeds under her own and client bylines, and her work, focusing on trafficking, terrorism, border and national security, has appeared in both national and international outlets, including The Washington Post, The Washington Times, The International Herald Tribune, The Financial Times, and Vital Speeches of the Day.

Kathleen Millar holds an MA from Georgetown University and was the recipient of a United Nations Fellowship, International Affairs, Oxford. She is a member of the Georgetown University Alumni Association, Women in International Security (GU), the Women’s Foreign Policy Group, and the American News Women’s Club in Washington, DC. Kathleen Millar is currently teaching and writing about efforts to combat transnational organized crime.

GreadDecisions in foreign policy discussion group ad v2